Off Topic France under attack

[55282]

IS tightens Libya grip as world focuses on Iraq, Syria
http://blink.htcsense.com/web/articleweb.aspx?regionid=3&articleid=53152192

Sent via BlinkFeed

 

[swantastic]

News reports have also dropped the stories about Calais and the mass immigration into Europe too ! I`ts as if it`s all gone away and the chaos has stopped !!

 

[Kifflom!]

PGF: I think that your view is too simplistic. The options are clear after Paris.

1: Do nothing, despite being specifically requested to help by a close ally that has been attacked. This won't prevent a UK attack either.
2: Extend the bombing into Syria over a non-existent borders. There have been instances when RAF planes have been in the vicinity of ISIS fuel convoys but we've been unable to attack them as they are just over the border. That's pathetic.
3: Do Number 2 but push for a diplomatic solution in Vienna as well.

Looks like we've gone for number 3 and I totally agree with that.I don't agree with Hilary Benn on much but this was his superb speech in full:

You must log in or register to see media

 

[swantastic]

They must have heard me ! just on joke bbc news, the immigrants are still there fighting against Macedonian authorities stopping them getting what they want !

The bombing in Syria is a theater of power struggles by the wealthy nations and it was only a matter of time before Cameron & Co. got in on the act ! blowing oil supplies up that were destined for where ? Russia, Europe ? and the cash to where ? Daesh ? those that always profit from wars ?
The terrorists will soon take a back seat on priority when the powers bombing start crossing each other and have some friendly fire etc. How long before the resisted boots on the ground begins ?
The terror alerts will shoot up to a new word for the highest level here soon as well !!

Meanwhile how do they expect to solve the terrorist problems when they get endless new recruits from many countries where they aint bombing yet ? From Africa, Saudi and other Arab states, Pakistan, Europe etc... and even from Here !! it`s a tinderbox that has a hundred sparks waving around it escalating to a possible world conflict ! Nowt the peaceful majority of the worlds populations can do about it while divided but will all pay with their families lives if the lunatics on all sides get their way !

 

[PGFWhite]

PGF: I think that your view is too simplistic. The options are clear after Paris.

1: Do nothing, despite being specifically requested to help by a close ally that has been attacked. This won't prevent a UK attack either.
2: Extend the bombing into Syria over a non-existent borders. There have been instances when RAF planes have been in the vicinity of ISIS fuel convoys but we've been unable to attack them as they are just over the border. That's pathetic.
3: Do Number 2 but push for a diplomatic solution in Vienna as well.

Looks like we've gone for number 3 and I totally agree with that.I don't agree with Hilary Benn on much but this was his superb speech in full:

You must log in or register to see media

I watched the speech live and yes it was an excellent speech, but that's all it is - a well delivered speech. If people need a well delivered speech to formulate an opinion then they don't have much of an idea as to what's going on in the first place.

The seeds of this conflict stretch back mainly to the end of World War 1 and ultimately several millennia. Dropping a few GB bombs on Syria won't change much, apart from making GB a bigger target than it already is and radicalizing more of the Syrian population. It was gesture politics at it's worst, with no strategy or long term commitment to get even anywhere near the solution.

The whole situation is a mess and getting worse and it was sickening to see the warmongers in Parliament jumping on the bandwagon without offering ANY long term ideas of how to defeat ISIS. We've made the same mistakes in the past, getting involved without a clear plan, and no one is learning from the repeated mistakes.

I am not saying we shouldn't get involved. I'm saying that if we are to get involved then we have to have clear objectives - and there weren't too many of those on display yesterday. Until that time arises, men of caution should be applauded for actually trying to debate the issues, rather than ridiculed by those keen for revenge, keen to sell more arms and keen to appease their American paymasters.

 

[seabreeze]

So it was a Muslim couple , this one is going to be perticularlly scary as they seem not to be extremist types.
Seems he wanted to pull off some sort of stunt and found the reason at work, otherwise he was already prepared to do it wherever else he decided .

 

[DragonPhilljack]

That has not been confirmed Roof, they do not know if the person that left disgruntled has anything to do with the shooters, but if it does, how the hell does a disagreement end up with mass shooting of a para-military nature? very worrying indeed, about time the Yanks started getting serious on Gun laws……..

Easy, they where Muslim! This religion needs destroying without doubt.............

 

[Kifflom!]

Re the Californian attack - looks like a disgruntled employee, Roof. Though why an "ordinary, shy guy" would have 2 sets of body armour and heavy weaponry at home is something that we Brits have trouble understanding. Probably Canucks too.

PGF: I don't think it was an easy decision for anyone in Parliament but I was pleased to see the UKIP MP Douglas Carswell vote for the motion despite Farage's reservations. Dealing with the points you raise:

1: Benn's speech was good - but it wasn't just the delivery that mattered, it was content.
2: UK will not be a bigger target. Defence chiefs said we were already in the top tier of targets anyway. How can we possibly be a bigger target? The French are a close ally to us and have asked for help. As Margaret Beckett said, how would we feel if the positions were reversed and their Parliament said no? It may be a 'gesture' on our part (I don't agree with that by the way), but an important one.
3: No long term strategy? You make the mistake that many others have, including in Parliament. We are ALREADY in conflict with ISIS so this motion was nothing new other than to stretch the action over a non-existent border. It's militarily bankrupt to hit ISIS on one side of an imaginary border then allow them to scurry away into Syria with impunity. Vienna talks are making progress and were repeatedly mentioned yesterday, but we can't wait for the animals in Raqqa to put together another plot - next time it could be in the UK.
4: Objectives. The general consensus is that air strikes alone won't do the job but they will help. The RAF has a superb record of accurate bombing, with zero reported civilian casualties in Iraq despite them hitting 350 ISIS targets. The objective is to degrade them from the air in the short term, disrupting their income through bombing oil fields, depots and supplies. This has already happened apparently. Long term hope has to be put into Vienna, as Benn rightly said. If the civil war is sorted then whoever takes control of a unified Syria can deal with what's left of ISIS. It's not perfect, but it's better than wringing our hands and doing nothing.

 

[seabreeze]

In probably every one of these events there are always a handful of people that say " I know them , I knew something wasn't right "
What we need is these handful of people to come forward previous to the event.
The scary part with this couple is they weren't poor or from the wrong side of the tracks or with a criminal background .
They were probably sick of neighbours and co workers picking on them because they were Muslim .
Couple that with the environment that ISIS has created and voila , instant terrorist

 

[Kifflom!]

...and throw in U.S gun laws. Stricter in California, but still.....

 

[swantastic]

You must log in or register to see media

 

[Kifflom!]

I love that record - but not as good as.... Oh god. Memories of Magalluf

You must log in or register to see media

 

[seabreeze]

More radicalized domestic Muslims will be caused by the treatment received by the domestic public than ISIS ever will .
Only after these domestic Muslims have been peppered with ill tempered remarks and action because of the ISIS 's actions around the world , do the turn to ISIS's social media and other terrorist ways to vent their anger ...imo.

 

[swantastic]

I`ts nice that we can afford to escalate our military presence further afield ! I hope they will now also spend some on our own people now that we know the austerity no pot to piss in was a load of bollox ! Housing for our needy and spending on everything else that`s been cut and infrastructure here ! no need for food banks or elderly choosing food or heat this winter aye ? Or will they top up the war chest again by just printing more of the fictitious money needed or pay it on the never never that our great great grand kids will have to try and pay for , to spread our depleted forces even further ?

And as they must have a plan to end the terrorists for good plus the browny points for supporting the French and USA etc who like us so much, Will they look after our boys that get injured, mentally damaged, unemployable and homeless before and later on, any better ?

You must log in or register to see images

You must log in or register to see images

 

[swanee]

It`s only a short while ago we were undergoing an austerity program. Even closer to now there was going to be swingeing cuts everywhere, welfare, nhs, police, schools. Luckily for the fortunes of war, we now have gazillions of pounds to waste on bombing. Is it right that these bombs are £800,000 each?

That slimy git cameron even said that those who are against the bombing are terrorists themselves, what does that make those who want to kill innocent people as well as terrorists.

He also said that protecting our borders is of vital importance, well why doesn`t he protect our borders by increasing the border force and, if necessary, mobilise troops to all the points of ingress. We are an island after all, a lot easier to manage than the rest of mainland Europe. Although no measures will deter the homegrown bombers.

Religion is the root of all evil throughout the ages. Although these fundamental Islamic nutters seem to be beyond reason.

 

[PGFWhite]

Re the Californian attack - looks like a disgruntled employee, Roof. Though why an "ordinary, shy guy" would have 2 sets of body armour and heavy weaponry at home is something that we Brits have trouble understanding. Probably Canucks too.

PGF: I don't think it was an easy decision for anyone in Parliament but I was pleased to see the UKIP MP Douglas Carswell vote for the motion despite Farage's reservations. Dealing with the points you raise:

1: Benn's speech was good - but it wasn't just the delivery that mattered, it was content.
2: UK will not be a bigger target. Defence chiefs said we were already in the top tier of targets anyway. How can we possibly be a bigger target? The French are a close ally to us and have asked for help. As Margaret Beckett said, how would we feel if the positions were reversed and their Parliament said no? It may be a 'gesture' on our part (I don't agree with that by the way), but an important one.
3: No long term strategy? You make the mistake that many others have, including in Parliament. We are ALREADY in conflict with ISIS so this motion was nothing new other than to stretch the action over a non-existent border. It's militarily bankrupt to hit ISIS on one side of an imaginary border then allow them to scurry away into Syria with impunity. Vienna talks are making progress and were repeatedly mentioned yesterday, but we can't wait for the animals in Raqqa to put together another plot - next time it could be in the UK.
4: Objectives. The general consensus is that air strikes alone won't do the job but they will help. The RAF has a superb record of accurate bombing, with zero reported civilian casualties in Iraq despite them hitting 350 ISIS targets. The objective is to degrade them from the air in the short term, disrupting their income through bombing oil fields, depots and supplies. This has already happened apparently. Long term hope has to be put into Vienna, as Benn rightly said. If the civil war is sorted then whoever takes control of a unified Syria can deal with what's left of ISIS. It's not perfect, but it's better than wringing our hands and doing nothing.

Re the Californian attack - looks like a disgruntled employee, Roof. Though why an "ordinary, shy guy" would have 2 sets of body armour and heavy weaponry at home is something that we Brits have trouble understanding. Probably Canucks too.

PGF: I don't think it was an easy decision for anyone in Parliament but I was pleased to see the UKIP MP Douglas Carswell vote for the motion despite Farage's reservations. Dealing with the points you raise:

1: Benn's speech was good - but it wasn't just the delivery that mattered, it was content.
2: UK will not be a bigger target. Defence chiefs said we were already in the top tier of targets anyway. How can we possibly be a bigger target? The French are a close ally to us and have asked for help. As Margaret Beckett said, how would we feel if the positions were reversed and their Parliament said no? It may be a 'gesture' on our part (I don't agree with that by the way), but an important one.
3: No long term strategy? You make the mistake that many others have, including in Parliament. We are ALREADY in conflict with ISIS so this motion was nothing new other than to stretch the action over a non-existent border. It's militarily bankrupt to hit ISIS on one side of an imaginary border then allow them to scurry away into Syria with impunity. Vienna talks are making progress and were repeatedly mentioned yesterday, but we can't wait for the animals in Raqqa to put together another plot - next time it could be in the UK.
4: Objectives. The general consensus is that air strikes alone won't do the job but they will help. The RAF has a superb record of accurate bombing, with zero reported civilian casualties in Iraq despite them hitting 350 ISIS targets. The objective is to degrade them from the air in the short term, disrupting their income through bombing oil fields, depots and supplies. This has already happened apparently. Long term hope has to be put into Vienna, as Benn rightly said. If the civil war is sorted then whoever takes control of a unified Syria can deal with what's left of ISIS. It's not perfect, but it's better than wringing our hands and doing nothing.

I am well aware of our airstrikes against ISIS and I’m also aware that the wider the conflict you take part in the more people you are likely to kill, the more enemies you make and the bigger target you become. It’s as simple as that.

Why did the French require help from GB to bomb Syria? They’ve already been doing that and that’s why they were targeted. Just because the RAF have an excellent record of accurate bombing does not mean that we have to take part in every military action requested by the USA or other European countries.

There are many other ways we could have helped the French with their internal security and the strengthening of their borders which would be a far more effective way of safeguarding French citizens. We could also help them by not supplying arms to half of the worlds rogues in the first place.

As to the imaginary border over which the RAF could not fly, it seems ironic that it was probably the same border imposed by the French and British under the Sykes-Picot Agreement in 1916. You’ll find most of the seeds of the current conflict were sewn there when the French and British carved up the area in the first place.

 

[swantastic]

I agree, bin membership of the EU superstate and control our boarders and much more
Get the leaders around a table including Russia, China EVERYONE ! and form a plan that will work not only to eradicate the to far gone nutters but try using their brains to bring peace to the regions even if it means working together long term with all cards on the table ! Fat chance aye !

You must log in or register to see images

 

[Matthew Bound Still Lurks]

It`s only a short while ago we were undergoing an austerity program. Even closer to now there was going to be swingeing cuts everywhere, welfare, nhs, police, schools. Luckily for the fortunes of war, we now have gazillions of pounds to waste on bombing. Is it right that these bombs are £800,000 each?

That slimy git cameron even said that those who are against the bombing are terrorists themselves, what does that make those who want to kill innocent people as well as terrorists.

He also said that protecting our borders is of vital importance, well why doesn`t he protect our borders by increasing the border force and, if necessary, mobilise troops to all the points of ingress. We are an island after all, a lot easier to manage than the rest of mainland Europe. Although no measures will deter the homegrown bombers.

Religion is the root of all evil throughout the ages. Although these fundamental Islamic nutters seem to be beyond reason.

Who do you think has seats on the Boards of the Companies making the ordnance, The contract for American companies to rebuild Iraq were awarded before the war started .We are a rich country and all the bullshit about austerity is there to keep us down and nothing else to . If a slug like Blair & Bush can avoid prosecution for War crimes then it's open season as far as the rest of the crooks are concerned .

 

[Matthew Bound Still Lurks]

I agree, bin membership of the EU superstate and control our boarders and much more
Get the leaders around a table including Russia, China EVERYONE ! and form a plan that will work not only to eradicate the to far gone nutters but try using their brains to bring peace to the regions even if it means working together long term with all cards on the table ! Fat chance aye !

You must log in or register to see images

They tried that towards the end of the second worlds war with the then 3 major super powers carving up Europe ,mostly to the benefit of the USSR , why do you thing the Balkans war came about or the Vietnam war .Man by definition is not peaceful and that's been proven by history .

 

[ValleyGraduate12]

I am well aware of our airstrikes against ISIS and I’m also aware that the wider the conflict you take part in the more people you are likely to kill, the more enemies you make and the bigger target you become. It’s as simple as that.

Why did the French require help from GB to bomb Syria? They’ve already been doing that and that’s why they were targeted. Just because the RAF have an excellent record of accurate bombing does not mean that we have to take part in every military action requested by the USA or other European countries.

There are many other ways we could have helped the French with their internal security and the strengthening of their borders which would be a far more effective way of safeguarding French citizens. We could also help them by not supplying arms to half of the worlds rogues in the first place.

As to the imaginary border over which the RAF could not fly, it seems ironic that it was probably the same border imposed by the French and British under the Sykes-Picot Agreement in 1916. You’ll find most of the seeds of the current conflict were sewn there when the French and British carved up the area in the first place.

Of course, we armed, funded and trained these men to topple Assad so we could control their oil exports. Now that has backfired, we are bombing them so that we can get the oil supplies. Oil is the reason for us attacking again. Same with Iraq etc.

Let's make no mistake here, Islam didn't create ISIS, the USA/UK did